yes, all humans.
i think we’ve established that the so-called american dream is a myth, yes? that not everyone (in fact, hardly anyone) can conceivably pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become a billionaire with a tax shelter on an island someplace? that, in fact, most people dream about being able to make ends meet each month–and that this is in no way because they aren’t working hard enough?
great. now let’s talk about entitlement.
“entitlement” is oftentimes used in conjunction with the word “attitude” by white, middle-class-and-higher, middle-aged-and-older people with desk jobs to describe an invisible aura that allegedly emanates from any marginalized person. this aura is characterized by a desire, whether expressed vocally or not, to have access to things like food and running water and electricity and a living wage and, perhaps, even affordable healthcare. as though they deserve these things for merely existing. *scoff*
entitlement is rarely used to describe the attitude held by people who already have food, water, electricity, a living wage, and healthcare: that they are the *only* people who deserve these things; that having these things is a badge of honor bestowed on them by Capitalism for being hard-working, not taking into account the circumstances that made these things accessible to them because ha! that’s not the way things work.
entitlement is rarely used to describe people who are able to pay taxes, but feel that they shouldn’t have to pay for social programs because they don’t need them. we don’t call someone “entitled” for having the means to help other people and better their community but choosing to spout “man is an island” rhetoric and blame the institutionally oppressed for their own oppression.
but, really. who is entitled? people whose circumstances afford them better access and opportunity to succeed in a life-game already fixed in their favor, but want to be exempt from helping other people if it doesn’t give them a tax credit? or people whose odds in the game are unfavorable simply because they exist?
feminism is indeed a class issue. feminism is aimed, in so many ways, at those of us whose circumstances allow us the ability to be concerned about sexism and gender inequality. but classism is also a feminist issue.
all humans deserve food, water, shelter, access to healthcare, education, freedom from violence, simply because they are human.
Young Mormon Feminists 
27 Responses to “yes, all humans.”
Hilarious! You don’t want to work hard so you want the people who do work hard to pay for you. You do realize that 80% of millionaires in the US are first generation millionaires. Let me simplify that for you. It means they are self-made people, not living on family money. People such as Kennedys are the exception, not the rule.
Rather working hard like I did (I never had new clothes while growing up, everything came from Goodwill, I worked my way through college, a graduate degree, and now make an extremely comfortable salary) you want to whine about it, advocate for Socialism, which is the forerunner of full-blown communism (Satan’s mockery of the law of consecration), and take from those who actually work hard while you don’t. Get over yourself. You earn based on your effort.
You are a perfect example of entitlement when it comes from people who believe that simply because they suffered and were able to claw out of it, it means everyone else who can’t do it is because they “don’t want to work hard”. You’d think that people like you would have more sympathy because you say you know what being poor is like, but oh, it’s a world full of surprises.
Or they know how to get off their ass, stop making excuses, and get to work. That is where success lies, not in looting off the hard workers.
Amen Sarah. Perfectly said.
“What one person can do, another can do.”
This, again, was among the fictions of Coketown. Any capitalist there, who had made sixty thousand pounds out of sixpence, always professed to wonder why the sixty thousand nearest Hands didn’t each make sixty thousand pounds out of sixpence, and more or less reproached them every one for not accomplishing this little feat. What I did you can do. Why don’t you go and do it?
–Charles Dickens, “Hard Times.”
Yes, Sarah, I’m glad you know how every single poor person in the world thinks. I’m not saying there aren’t people who don’t do their best to play the system, but I refuse to blame them all for the sins of a few. Let’s quit complaining and be thankful that our taxes that go to welfare and WIC and such are able to help innocents who really can’t do much about their situation instead of making them all feel like dirt.
No, you don’t earn based on your effort. Otherwise, every mother in Africa that walks an hour for water every day would be a millionaire right now.
BTW, what, exactly, happened to your soul? Was losing it a gradual process, or did you just finish the last page of Atlas Shrugged and, BOOM, it was gone?
Capitalism is not what is being practiced in America today; what we see today is Corporatism, where the odds are stacked in favor of the rich, and legal plunder flourishes. Don’t give Capitalism a bad rap because it’s the very system that made this country great.
We’ve fallen into a state of immense greed and corruption but that isn’t Capitalism’s fault. Again, Capitalism is about a free market and people earning what they’ve worked for. Corporatism, on the other hand, is a dismal situation that further impoverishes the poor, eradicates the middle class, and the wealth goes into the hands of the already rich.
There are definitely problems in the current system but the answer is NEVER to take from one person what they have rightfully earned to give to someone who didn’t earn it. Socialist ideals are damnable and will always fail, in the end. Socialism is also highly unethical.
Men should “earn based on effort”, as Sarah said. Of course people (no matter what class) should be able to earn a living wage and I agree that the needs of the lower class who work just as hard as the rest of us, are not being adequately met. This should change. We need a true restoration of Capitalism and the abolition of Corporatism in our government.
Well said Winter. This author needs to read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. Fascism is the problem, not capitalism. Capitalism is just another term for liberty or freedom. Are there negative ramification of capitalism? Sure. Just like there are negative ramifications of God giving man agency… See and that’s the point, this battle over freedom/capitalism is not “like” the war in heaven, it IS the same war and I promise you, your ideologies that you espouse here are some of main tools of the enemy. Learn that now or regret it later.
Also you need to understand what a straw man argument is… No one said the American dream is to become a billionaire with an island. When you try to prove your point by arguing and proving another irrelevant point you weaken your overall position.
[…] By Dani i think we’ve established that the so-called american dream is a myth, yes? that not everyone (in fact, hardly anyone) can conceivably pull themselves up by… …read more […]
People are entitled to what they earn. That also how the gospel works. You are entitled to the righteousness you achieve.
You, princess Dani are do not deserve what other people have because you have not earned it.
If we were required to earn salvation, we wouldn’t need the Atonement.
No, God gives the wealthy everything they have. They are no more “entitled” to it than anyone else is. We are commanded to give liberally to those that need it. Quit pretending that your fascist view is the gospel view, Dagny Taggart.
Ouch, so many negative comments. I just want to chime in and say that I really appreciated this new view point, Dani. I used to have the same attitude as many of these commenters. I grew up without a lot of money, worked hard in school, earned a scholarship to pay for college, got up early to clean toilets to pay for room and board, etc. I thought that if I could “pull myself up by my bootstraps” and succeed, anyone should be able to. But I was only thinking about the things that worked against me in life, not about my advantages. I wasn’t thinking about the fact that I am white, and that alone may have helped me get a job or helped me get better grades because my teachers expected better of me because of my skin color. I wasn’t thinking about the fact that, while I didn’t have parents who could pay for my college, I did have parents who could support me through high school, so I wasn’t forced to work just to help put food on my family’s table; I could focus on my schoolwork and get good grades.
Dani isn’t saying that if you have succeeded, your life has been easy, just that you may not be seeing the advantages you were given because you’ve always taken them for granted.
There are plenty of examples in the scriptures of people giving to those who haven’t earned it. In fact, the Law of Consecration is the same concept, and we know that we will one day be asked to live that law. Obviously (based on people like those who made the previous comments) we are not ready to live that law yet.
There are a lot of things my tax money pays for that I’m not a fan of. Helping out my fellow human beings is not one of them.
New view point?! Lol. You have hot to kidding me right? Do you know a shred of human history. This is the SAME exact garbage that tore nations apart and that was responsible for millions upon millions of deaths over the last 100 years. New?! It’s as old at the ages. Sure, I understand that you are not advocating for death and destruction but you liberals never see the logical end of your socialism. Sometimes societies can stagnate for decades but many times it ends with a bullet to the head. Theatrics? Oh a little I suppose. But read history and the deaths should sober you up.
A new view point? What planet do you live on? This is the same argument as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Casto, Chavez, etc.
Besides, no supporter of capitalism and freedom ever for one second promised equal results (that’s Satan’s “promise”), rather that you’ll get enjoy the fruits of your labors and the more you put in, generally the more you’ll get out.
You fail to recognize the different between giving and taking. Giving is done voluntarily. Taking is done when te person whose things are being removed is done forcefully, such as under threat of imprisonment or a fine. That is also known as taxation.
P.S. By “new view point” I meant her new take on the #yesallwomen trend. I was referring to her title. Obviously I know socialism isn’t new, and I don’t even think it’s necessarily what she’s advocating for.
If you don’t think what she’s advocating for is Socalism, then you don’t understand what Socalism is. Socialism is EXACTLY what this post calls for.
No read it it again. Socialism is exactly what she is advocating. Liberals love to spout off tirades of socialistic ideology but rarely ever say the word socialism. If you love it just own it. But don’t masquerade behind something else. You are not fooling anyone… Actually scratch that, lots of people are being fooled by that garbage unfortunately.
It’s always puzzled me how someone can deserve healthcare. Water makes a kind of sense. It was here before anyone and ethically it makes sense that no one should be able to monopolize the water of the world or control it in such a way that they hold the population at ransom by distributing it in arbitrarily controlled amounts.
But healthcare comes from other people by way of products and services. To say one deserves healthcare means something along the lines of: “I deserve that one or more people will study medicine and then make the tools and medicines necessary to keep me healthy, arrange places where I can be treated and set aside time to treat me. Furthermore, I have no obligation to study these things myself or pay for said things unless I can.”
Besides for being an unethical position, doesn’t it seem, well, unpractical?
What a demented way to look at universal healthcare! You make it sound as if doctors in these countries are indentured servants. Universal healthcare is quite simple: people within a nation-state voted to tax themselves to provide healthcare for everyone. THE END.
What’s *truly* unethical is allowing people to die because they don’t have the means to pay for needed treatments out-of-pocket. It’s far more ethical to require that people pay into the medical system, to the extent that they can, and then use the system as needed. It seems idiotic to me to say that paying for a health care system via taxation is unethical while allowing people to die is not. Your argument is an example of how libertarian ideology strips people of their sense of human decency.
“Universal healthcare is quite simple: people within a nation-state voted to tax themselves to provide healthcare for everyone. THE END.”
tvmpawps – very eloquently said. THANK YOU.
This idea isn’t radical at all to me. I have actually discussed the topic multiple times in my social work classes, the idea that all people should have access to these basic resources of living. As the US is right now, many of these things are unattainable for many people. I agree 100 % that the upper class needs to take a step back and analyze their own entitlement.
Move to Cuba. They have what you all are advocating for. See how that works when everyone is a consumer and there’s no incentive to be a producer.
It seems you have confused “access to resources” with “tyrannical communism.” These really aren’t the same, at all. There are several countries that have what I’m advocating for: Canada, England, Switzerland, and others.
All of the hardcore libertarians on here seem to think that social democracies like Sweden, Germany, France, Japan, etc. do not exist. For them, if you’re not a radical free-marketeer, you’re a communist. If your ideology requires that you ignore the experience and example of the hundreds of millions of people that live in places where people are taken care of, but that haven’t devolved into tyranny, your ideology is wrong.